He is the author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change[7] published in 2009 by Cambridge University Press and which was named by The Economist in December 2009 as one of their four Books of Year for science and technology.[8] He has also edited the books Climates of the British Isles: Present, Past and Future,[9] "Climate policy options post-2012: European strategy, technology and adaptation after Kyoto" co-edited with Bert Metz and Michael Grubb[10] and in 2010, co-edited with Henry Neufeldt, Making Climate Change Work For Us: European Perspectives on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. In 2013 he published Exploring Climate Change Through Science and in Society: An Anthology of Mike Hulme's Essays, Interviews and Speeches, which brings together many of his more popular writings on climate change since the late 1980s.

In 2008, Hulme made a personal statement on what he called the "5 lessons of climate change", as: (1) "Climate change is a relative risk, not an absolute one", (2) "Climate risks are serious, and we should seek to minimise them", (3) "Our world has huge unmet development needs", (4) "Our current energy portfolio is not sustainable", (5) "Massive and deliberate geo-engineering of the planet is a dubious practice".[11]

"At the very least, the publication of private CRU e-mail correspondence should be seen as a wake-up call for scientists - and especially for climate scientists. The key lesson to be learnt is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned - the IPCC does a fair job of this according to its own terms - but that in the new century of digital communication and an active citizenry, the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned".[12]

In another article for the BBC, in November 2006, he warned against the dangers of using alarmist language when communicating climate change science.[13]

Mike Hulme is one of the authors of the Hartwell Paper, published by the London School of Economics in collaboration with the University of Oxford in May 2010.[14] The authors argued that, after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Kyoto Protocol crashed. They claimed that Kyoto had "failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years."[14][15] They argued that this failure opened an opportunity to set climate policy free from Kyoto and the paper advocates a controversial and piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy.[16][17][18]